Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Norm and everyone else who replied, Thanks so much for your direction and advice. I believe I actually do have to tools needed to print a digital 8x10 negative, and thus explore the contact printing process minus an 8x10 view camera. I have an Epson 2200 and a little C86 with quadtone inks (which I find I prefer to the 2200 thus far) that I use for printing B&W, and I believe either will do the trick. I'll still need to explore aspects of this digital -> analog process, but it might get me going sooner rather than later. This approach also made me recall the "alternative process" forum on the APUG web site, where I believe some folks are pursuing "digital negatives" in this manner. I think I'll spend some hours scouring the archives there. My brother used to keep a darkroom, and he's offered to loan me his equipment which I'll imagine I'll shoe horn into my bathroom :-) So that's some good news. The suggestion of a 5x7 view camera might be a good one. I often print my photographs @ 5x7. Since I currently scan negs and print digitally, I find that 5x7 provides an adequate size to view the photograph but still with adequate print quality from the scanned B&W negs. So making 5x7 contact prints from a 5x7 negative might be a very satisfying experience. I've come to actually really like this format and print size. I'm pleased that there were no negative comments on the Tachihara camera, as it seems like a relatively economical tool for the job. Thanks again for everyone's comments and suggestions. Scott Norm Aubin wrote: > Scott, > >While not an expert on it, I do have a bit of experience contact printing >large format. > >It has a virtue all it's own when done from a large film negative - the >sharpness and tonal scale are every bit as good as is possible for the film >and camera to render. You can become extremely frustrated when you see >prints made from enlarged negatives, they somehow seem less satisfying after >you get used to the results of large format contact printing. The inherent >danger is that the results can be so very addictive that you suddenly find >yourself lusting for an 11x14 or a 12x20 banquet camera! > >Thank god for digital output - now you can scan any high quality negative >(read Leica there), enlarge and manipulate it in Photoshop as you would in >the darkroom, print it to clear acetate (Pictorio has an excellent >transparency paper), and contact print it like a negative. All the >spotting, dodging and burning, contrast adjustments, etc, are already done, >consistently and repeatable! Five years later the print is still easily >re-done, without having to re-read an old print-map. > >I have done this for silver and platinum papers, and it works great after >you figure out the contrast curve for the papers of your choice. Not a >whole lot different in concept to selecting developers for their contrast >and tonal rendition on various papers. In this case you have to figure out >the tonal response of the paper to the printed negative, but it is easily >tested and calibrated. > >If you're sticking to black and white papers you can get by with a contact >printing frame and a light bulb, maybe with a timer in the loop, but an >audible metronome and a cardboard sheet work every bit as good. In my >experience the most underrated and most critical piece of equipment is the >contact printing frame. It must of course be flat, have high quality glass, >be large enough to fit the film you are working with, and have secure but >easily used pinch bars or clamps on the back to secure the film/paper under >constant and even pressure. A split back is best if you think you might >ever use a printing out paper, as it lets you open the back and evaluate >half the paper's development, while holding the other half secure to assure >proper re-alignment when you close it back up. New quality frames are in >the $100 and up range, depending on size, so shop used if you must, but do >not compromise quality to save money, you'll spend it later and hate the >time in between. > >One that has enough wooden or metal frame area around the glass is useful - >you want to me able to stick tape on the edges, where you can make marks and >indicators to serve as a guide for dodging and burning. Since the image is >contact printed, you lack the projected visual scene with which you compare >your print map and then manipulate. For example - say you've test printed >and determined that the foreground needs a 25% burn in with feathering along >an area of 1/4 to 1 inch, to blend into a transition area, all this >occurring about 3 inches up from the bottom of the negative. Once you place >a new sheet of paper into the frame and put it under the light - how do you >see this area? If you take your test print from before, lay it near the >frame, put tape along the frame so that you can mark areas as reference >points, then you have an external reference guide so that your dodging and >burning can be keyed to these points. You can make a grid, or you can use >flagging symbols telling yourself where to burn, where to dodge, and even >number them to indicate what order you are doing this in, etc. > >One thing this will do for you is instill the desire to get a damn good >exposure on the film in the first place. The better the negative, and the >better handled it is, the less effort to make a contact print that is a gem >to behold. > >BTW, another way to try out this whole concept is to take your Leica >negative and enlarge/project it onto a sheet of Ilford Ortho film, or any >other copy neg film, and then contact print this to make an inter-neg that >you then contact print on paper. This way a 35mm negative can be made into >a 8x10 positive, then contact printed (reversed) into an 8x10 negative, and >this is used for contact printing. Digital negative making is easier, but >only if you have a digital set up. > >As far as cameras go, there are a ton of new and used ones out there, and if >your preference is studio work only, then either rail or flat bed will work, >but a rail camera will give you a far better range of movements. These are >critical for a lot of still life and table top work, but are over-kill for >most portraiture. For portraiture you also needn't have near as much bellow >reach as for table top & still life, where you may need twice the bellows >length as the focal length of the lens (for 1:1 life size images). The most >useful guide I've found yet for view camera use and lens selection is Steve >Simmons' book titled "Using The View Camera" (ISBN 0-8174-6353-4). > >Of course, once you start purchasing all the films and papers and chemicals, >you will undoubtedly start stimulating the vendors, and who knows, maybe add >further impetus to the film renaissance that is occurring even as we speak! > >Best of light, >Norm > > > > -- Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)